Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be... - 2/3/2015 10:02:06 AM   
crumpets


Posts: 1614
Joined: 11/5/2014
From: South Bay (SF & Silicon Valley)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP
I'm a J but I dislike strict order. I like a laid back relationship.


If you're a weak J, that's (almost) the same as a weak P, so, saying you're a J doesn't say much.
How STRONG is the J part of your personality? That's the focus here.

If you always are on time; or even (heaven forbid, you're always early); if you always make notes to do things, and you feel good about checking off the list (more so even than doing the item itself); if you always plan ahead; if you always follow the laws; if you don't cut across the grass because there is a sign saying not to do that; if you expect others to follow that very same sign that you followed; if you think cellphones are dangerous when used while driving, so you won't answer a call if your Bluetooth isn't working; if you then get upset when you see someone parked next to you at the light gabbing away with the phone to her ear; if you always double check your itinerary for a trip to Europe checking that all the hotels are confirmed in advance; etc. ... ...

Then, you're likely a STRONG J.

However if the answer is that you don't ALWAYS do that stuff, then you're more than likely a weaker J, and if you only sometimes do that stuff, then you're more than likely an even weaker J (which is approaching a weak P), and, if you're like I am, and you almost NEVER do that stuff, then you're approaching very close (if you haven't crossed already) into P territory.

But, having crossed the line into P, that still doesn't matter until we get to how STRONG of a P you are.

I'll give you an example of how strong of a P I am. I once went on a business trip to Japan, where I didn't even LOOK at my paperwork until I had already landed at Narita and picked up my bags, and even then, I only looked, because I had to figure out whether to take the Shinkansen into Tokyo or a bus to Shin-Yokohama, because I didn't even know what CITY I was visiting, let alone what hotel, nor even what customers.

When I got to the hotel, I realized I had forgotten to pack a belt and slippers, where you can't imagine how hard it is to find an American-sized set of clothes in short time in your typical Japanese shopping center. (On the fetish side, you can't imagine how small their stuff must be, so, that's something you absolutely MUST plan ahead for, by importing all necessary equipment from the states.)

Point is, that just saying someone is a J is nearly meaningless (because they can just as well be almost a P, for example).
It's the strength or weakness of the J that matters (for this discussion and for the type descriptions).

< Message edited by crumpets -- 2/3/2015 10:03:29 AM >

(in reply to DesFIP)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be... - 2/3/2015 10:08:55 AM   
crumpets


Posts: 1614
Joined: 11/5/2014
From: South Bay (SF & Silicon Valley)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
And you'd have to have something a little more concrete than a debunked theory to argue with.


Surely you must agree that there are highly ordered people and loosely ordered people. Right?
What you call them doesn't matter.

I'm simply calling a highly ordered person (many examples of which I've already given) a strong J (simply because that's what was used in the J/MB analysis). Likewise, a loosely ordered person, I'm calling a strong P.

Are you possibly intimating that there are no such people on this planet by saying this concept is a "debunked theory"?

< Message edited by crumpets -- 2/3/2015 10:12:57 AM >

(in reply to crumpets)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be... - 2/3/2015 10:11:14 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
Given all that, do you feel you are more ordered (J) or more freestyle (P) in your personality?

Puhleeeeeze give it up!!

The is no correlation - no matter much you keep on at it.
The whole theory has been debunked and discredited as any sort of measuring hypothesis for anything.

As I pointed out in post#7: "Jung's methods primarily included clinical observation, introspection and anecdote"

As many on here have demonstrated - it is pure bunkum and fantasy.
Nobody can answer your theory because it is based on invalidity.

_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to crumpets)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be... - 2/3/2015 10:14:15 AM   
crumpets


Posts: 1614
Joined: 11/5/2014
From: South Bay (SF & Silicon Valley)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
The is no correlation - no matter much you keep on at it.


Surely you cannot possibly be stating what it is that you're intimating, which is that there are no highly ordered people on this planet, nor loosely ordered people?

Since you're so hung up on classification categories, forget about what it's called.

Look at the graphic below, ignoring the letter "J" or the letter "P" (because that clearly confused you).

Can you possibly be saying that the strong traits shown in the graphic below simply do not exist in humans?


< Message edited by crumpets -- 2/3/2015 10:19:51 AM >

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be... - 2/3/2015 10:29:33 AM   
ExiledTyrant


Posts: 4547
Joined: 12/9/2013
From: Exiled
Status: offline 		~FR

I am systematic and organized, but very flexible.

I am open- no decision before its time. (I love surprises, particularly in the work I do)

I am neither early starting or pressure prompted, I take it as it comes.

I view things from every possible angle.

I am far too in the moment to seek closure or new information, I am simply in the moment.

_____________________________

Gnothi Seauton
To lead, first follow: Aurelius, Epictetus, Descartes, Sun Tzu, to name a few.

Semper fidelis (which sometimes feels like a burden)

(in reply to crumpets)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be... - 2/3/2015 10:31:55 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
The is no correlation - no matter much you keep on at it.


Surely you cannot possibly be stating what it is that you're intimating, which is that there are no highly ordered people on this planet, nor loosely ordered people?


Now you are twisting words and moving the goalposts, because that was NOT what you started this discussion as.
You did not posit "highly ordered people on this planet, nor loosely ordered people".
Instead, you asked -
Is there a correlation with STRONGLY P personalities being switches?
Likewise, is there a correlation with STRONGLY J personalities not being switches?
And all based on "I ask only of the last type, i.e., the P or the J, and, even then, only about STRONGLY P or STRONGLY J personalities".

What I'm saying is that it CANNOT be attributed to the MB 'indicator' that you are drumming on about.
Some will fit, some won't.
But as a so-called measure of personality types, you might just as well randomly pick coloured marbles blindfolded - it would almost certainly be just as accurate.

To base a hypothesis on a flawed theory, and then only posit your opinion based on only ONE of four (so-called) 'indicators' only compounds the flaws and makes it completely laughable.
But, of course, your myopic view can't seem to get your head round that simple fact.

_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to crumpets)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be... - 2/3/2015 10:37:36 AM   
littleladybug


Posts: 1082
Joined: 5/30/2013
Status: offline 		I'm a strong J. It's actually, by far, the strongest of the 4 for me.

I'm not a switch, by any stretch.

Whatever that means for your hypothesis.

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be... - 2/3/2015 11:24:05 PM   
orgasmdenial12


Posts: 613
Joined: 9/18/2012
Status: offline 		This theory would be correct with me.

I'm strongly J type (ENFJ). I'm strongly submissive identifying and prefer strongly Dom identifying partners. I avoid switches because the fluidity of their preferences doesn't work for me. I never really thought about applying my personality type to my sexuality before although it seems obvious now I think about it.

As regards valid / invalidity of Myers Briggs, I don't really see what there is to disprove about it. You answer a bunch of questions about your personality type and then you read what your selection means. It's probably about as accurate as any other self-disclosed questionnaire of preferences or personality.

(in reply to crumpets)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be... - 2/4/2015 7:24:28 AM   
crumpets


Posts: 1614
Joined: 11/5/2014
From: South Bay (SF & Silicon Valley)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant

~FR

I am systematic and organized, but very flexible.

I am open- no decision before its time. (I love surprises, particularly in the work I do)

I am neither early starting or pressure prompted, I take it as it comes.

I view things from every possible angle.

I am far too in the moment to seek closure or new information, I am simply in the moment.

Everything depends on how "systematic and organized" and how "flexible, but, if I take what you said above wholly at face value, giving equal weight to all the attributes you listed, then you are either a weak J or a weak P.

No personality is better or worse, as they're all just different - but - the nice thing about a balanced personality is that you have both a weak P and weak J to your credit.

A weak trait isn't pejorative; it simply indicates a balanced personality for that trait.

So, for example, when it comes to organization and planning, you do some organization, but you can easily handle changes that crop up, and you might leave some things to chance, but plan out the major events.

A strong J wouldn't do that, or, since the letter "J" somehow confuses people, a person who is very strongly systemic and organized often has trouble handling ad hoc changes in the schedule. The stronger this trait, the less they like it when things don't go according to plan.

What I'm postulating, and it's just musing at this point (which I never said otherwise), is that I would expect SWITCHES not to be strong Js, merely because strong Js like it their way.

Now, if you're "just" a "J", then that is meaningless, since you could be so weak of a J that you're also a P, which is, as I said, balanced; but that's not the type of person that I am discussing in this thread.

This thread is a musing about strong "P" types perhaps being more likely to be a switch, than the strong Js or strong Ps would be.

(in reply to ExiledTyrant)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be... - 2/4/2015 7:34:57 AM   
crumpets


Posts: 1614
Joined: 11/5/2014
From: South Bay (SF & Silicon Valley)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
Surely you cannot possibly be stating what it is that you're intimating, which is that there are no highly ordered people on this planet, nor loosely ordered people?

Maybe you missed the huge graphic in the OP and repeated in the thread you're responding to?

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
Now you are twisting words and moving the goalposts, because that was NOT what you started this discussion as.

Ummmm.... er... how shall I say this.
If you understood what a "J" was, enough to tell me that it was scientifically "debunked", then you already knew that a strong "J" is a highly ordered personality.

You did notice the word "strong" sprinkled throughout my OP, didn't you?
Maybe you even noticed the tell-tale clues in the SUBJECT line perhaps?

Or, should I repeat it, so that I don't continue to confuse you about what the subject matter of this discussion started as?
(BTW, you're welcome to contort the discussion to anything you like, which you have already taken the liberty to do; but to accuse me of confusing you by trying to get you back on course is a glaring example of hypocrisy which needs to be corrected)
quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
You did not posit "highly ordered people on this planet, nor loosely ordered people".

Ummmm... er ... see above...
If you had actually understood what the letter "J" indicates in this context, and then coupled that understanding with the clear qualifier of "strong", then you would never have made that wholly incorrect assumption.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
But, of course, your myopic view can't seem to get your head round that simple fact.

Heh heh ... I have a very clear understanding of the difference between strongly ordered and loosley ordered personality types, yet, you call me myopic when you're thoroughly confused by the letter "J", let alone when coupled with the qualifier "strong"?

In fact, I'll posit that you may likely even think a "J" and a "strong J" are practically the same thing!

Given what you've written, I'll let the jury decide who is actually the short-sighted person here.

Maybe you might wish to re-read the subject line, and perhaps take a look at the graphic again, and, my advice is not to be confused by either the letter "P", nor the letter "J", and, for you to seek to understand what the word "strong" means, in terms of the personality traits.

If you don't understand "J", "P", and "strong", you will never be able to contribute value to this discussion, simply because you can't possibly know what the discussion is about without that basic understanding.

< Message edited by crumpets -- 2/4/2015 7:44:46 AM >

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be... - 2/4/2015 8:28:30 AM   
GoddessManko


Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/6/2013
From: Dante's Inferno
Status: offline 		FR, firstly it's WEIRD your job uses this to screen people. Extremely weird. Don't give me the "white collared world" spiel as most people I know are from that realm. Secondly, it's probably why you subscribe to this idea so much but those definitions are not inflexible. They do make labeling of others via pretty close to accurate but probably not so much guesses.But it's closure, and closure is good for most of us. However, I can be both the center of attention and the person in the corner observing. I can be an intensive and thoughtful listener and engage in conversations for hours or be the loner who's doing my own thing. It's a matter of tact, time, place, people etc. I can be neat, or messy. A lot of things things that define us in themselves are flexible depending on circumstance. I don't subscribe to Jung but I do believe that one definition of INTJ describes me pretty well so I acknowledge it. But I wouldn't use it as the end all to describe what I am, especially as it relates to kink. I hate restrictions and therefore I am my own boss. However I am fickle about lack of discipline.

_____________________________

Happy consent is the name of the game. You are my perfect Mistress. - my collared.

http://submissivemale.blogspot.com/

The Bird of Hermes is my name, eating my wings to make me tame.

(in reply to needlesandpins)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be... - 2/4/2015 9:31:55 AM   
crumpets


Posts: 1614
Joined: 11/5/2014
From: South Bay (SF & Silicon Valley)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug

I'm a strong J. It's actually, by far, the strongest of the 4 for me.

I'm not a switch, by any stretch.

Whatever that means for your hypothesis.


That fits the hypothesis perfectly.

(in reply to littleladybug)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be... - 2/4/2015 9:42:07 AM   
crumpets


Posts: 1614
Joined: 11/5/2014
From: South Bay (SF & Silicon Valley)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12
This theory would be correct with me. I'm strongly J type (ENFJ). I'm strongly submissive... avoid switches ...

Thank you for the input.
While I don't expect everyone to fit the proposed model, what you said fits the reputed model perfectly!
And, thank you for noting that you're "strongly J", since a medium or weak J is not the topic of this discussion.
quote:

ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 I avoid switches because the fluidity of their preferences doesn't work for me.

While we have a long way to go to even see if the hypothesis holds true, in the main, it would follow suit that the "fluidity of preferences", as you so aptly characterize a "P", is exactly why, I would think, strong "Ps" might tend to be on the switchy side of the kneel.

We'll see how the hypothesis pans out, pending further data; but I do thank you for UNDERSTANDING what the question was all about! It's certainly not your typical Myers-Briggs question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12
I never really thought about applying my personality type to my sexuality before although it seems obvious now I think about it.

I think it was something very astute, said by Ms. Fiery Opal, that clued me in to the possibility. I do agree with you, that it "seems" like it could be a logical outcome of people wired to be both kinky and very highly Perceptive.


quote:

ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12
As regards valid / invalidity of Myers Briggs, I don't really see what there is to disprove about it. You answer a bunch of questions about your personality type and then you read what your selection means. It's probably about as accurate as any other self-disclosed questionnaire of preferences or personality.


We have to be careful here, as I would wager that not a lot of us have taken the many-hours-long Myers-Briggs tests, where they break down the personality types into far more than just the 16 we see on the free web pages after taking a five minute test.

The very long tests have plenty of trick questions which are designed to weed out inconsistent answers, and whim-of-the-moment answers to the type of what-if questions that a Myers-Briggs test naturally entails. I think one of the tests that I took had 64 different personality types, and, of course, I can, myself, come up with as many combinations that don't show up merely by someone saying (naively, it turns out) "I am an INTJ".

Without the strength modifier, an INTJ can be almost exactly like an ESFP, or an INTP, or an INFP, or an ISFP, etc.,

For this thread, we're only looking at STRONG Js and STRONG Ps, with respect to their relationship as SWITCHES.

(in reply to orgasmdenial12)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be... - 2/4/2015 9:56:34 AM   
crumpets


Posts: 1614
Joined: 11/5/2014
From: South Bay (SF & Silicon Valley)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
FR, firstly it's WEIRD your job uses this to screen people. Extremely weird.

I'll have to look at where you got the idea that the employer 'screened' people with the MB tests. We use the MB test to UNDERSTAND people. We want TEAMS to work well together. A team that is composed of ALL TYPES of people is generally the best team to handle the widest range of circumstances, but, for that team to work, the manager needs to UNDERSTAND both the types, and the people.

I'd have to look back at what I said, but if I even remotely implied the employer "screened" (which implies, in and of itself, a hiring/firing preference of some sort), then I misled you.

No personality is better (or worse) than another. Strong J's are useful, for example, as program managers. Strong Ps are useful too, for example, as customer support. Well balanced people (i.e., weak J's, and weak P's) are also very useful, and, in general, the weaker the personality traits, the EASIER the person is to get along with.

Anyway, this thread is decidedly NOT about employer 'screening' criteria; nor is this thread about the Myers-Briggs test itself.
It's just asking whether very strong loosely-ordered people tend to more likely to be switches than not.
quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
Don't give me the "white collared world" spiel as most people I know are from that realm. Secondly, it's probably why you subscribe to this idea so much but those definitions are not inflexible. They do make labeling of others via pretty close to accurate but probably not so much guesses.But it's closure, and closure is good for most of us.

This thread is not about the validity of the Myers-Briggs test itself, since the question can be asked wholly without any discussion whatsoever about the Myers-Briggs personality types.

In fact, just like every findom thread almost always turns into a prostitution discussion simply due to the pre-formed excitement around the keyword "fin", it seems I erred in bringing up MB, since that keyword seems to bring people to their pre-formed level they always were at, where they can't seem to fathom a novel idea, let alone explore that idea, in a positive value-added context.

All they can do is shoot down MB, which they would have done no matter what the topic was, as long as the keyword MB existed in the thread, just as what happens with all findomme threads.
quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko
I do believe that one definition of INTJ describes me pretty well so I acknowledge it. But I wouldn't use it as the end all to describe what I am,

Ummm.... er.... how shall I say this lightly?
You do realize it is impossible to have one definition of INTJ, right?

I mean, you can be a strong I and a weak NTJ, which can be (depending on the values) practically the same thing as an ISFP? Depending on the strength, it can be practically the same as an ESFP. Or an ESTJ. Or an ISFJ (and so on).

Even if we limit ourselves to a binary value (i.e., strong/weak) for the qualifier, that still nets us sixteen different personality descriptions for INTJ alone, which nets many total personality types even in this simple (binary qualifier) case.

The output I've seen, from classes costing tens of thousands of dollars, always provided descriptions based on tests taking an hour or more, and the results were based on the strength of the qualifiers (in terms of percentages). Hence an INTJ with a weak J would have a different personality profile than an INTJ with a strong J (in fact, those personality types would clearly be markedly different).

So, saying "one definition of INTJ describes me pretty well" is just sheer luck, since an INTJ with a weak J is nothing like an INTJ with a strong J, when it comes to preferences for order in their lives, and when it comes to expectations for others to follow suit.

< Message edited by crumpets -- 2/4/2015 10:10:15 AM >

(in reply to GoddessManko)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be... - 2/4/2015 10:15:13 AM   
SweetnStormySub


Posts: 74
Joined: 4/21/2012
From: Buckeye State
Status: offline 		Fr~
Seriously, all these labels...reminds me of baking a cake! A cup of E, pinch of J/P, fold in chopped pecans. For what it's worth, I am INFJ. Tiny J and tiny I. But in crumpet's airplane scenario, I identified strongly with the strong J. I honestly don't know how that fits into the equation. Must go, time to frost the cake with cream cheese N!

(in reply to crumpets)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be... - 2/4/2015 3:54:57 PM   
crumpets


Posts: 1614
Joined: 11/5/2014
From: South Bay (SF & Silicon Valley)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SweetnStormySub
Seriously, all these labels...reminds me of baking a cake! A cup of E, pinch of J/P, fold in chopped pecans.


I'm gathering that the single-letter "labels" confuse people, so, I modified the graphic to remove that confusion.
Look at the graphic now, where I have removed the letter "J" so that folks won't need to deal with "labels" anymore, and they can therefore concentrate on the novel concept inherent in the discussion itself.


quote:

ORIGINAL: SweetnStormySub
For what it's worth, I am INFJ. Tiny J and tiny I.

I must thank you for UNDERSTANDING that the strength of the preferred order in your life is critical to this discussion!
I'll assume that tiny means weak, so, you're a weakly ordered person, which this thread doesn't try to make any assumptions about.
As in all nascent scientific and philosophical discussions, one needs to simplify the testcase as much as possible, in order to see the hidden correlations below.
A weak preference is much harder to characterize than a strong preference, simply because it's more balanced, and therefore, it contains elements of both sides of the preferences (sort of like a conservative liberal, or a liberal conservative would be harder to characterize than a staunch conservative or an ardent liberal would be).

(in reply to SweetnStormySub)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be... - 2/4/2015 4:03:35 PM   
crumpets


Posts: 1614
Joined: 11/5/2014
From: South Bay (SF & Silicon Valley)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SweetnStormySub
But in crumpet's airplane scenario, I identified strongly with the strong J. I honestly don't know how that fits into the equation.


I had forgotten to mention that it's perfectly to be expected for a weakly ordered person to have traits that don't fit into the same description as a strongly ordered person would be. In fact, if you're weakly ordered, (i.e., a weak J), then you'll also have plenty of traits that a loosely ordered person would have.

That's not good, nor bad; it just means you're balanced in how you order your life, and, in how you expect others to order their lives around you.

However, for this thought question, we want to look at STRONGLY ORDERED people, simply because the hypothesis I am positing muses about whether switches tend to be more loosely ordered than non switches, and, of course, to SIMPLIFY the analysis of the data.

The ordering traits of a group of very strongly ordered fetishists are far less likely to vary than the traits of a similarly sized group of loosely ordered fetishists.

The question is whether the select group of very WEAKLY ORDERED people tend to more often be switches, or not, when it comes to D/s fetish role identification and enjoyment. The converse is whether very STRONGLY ORDERED people tend NOT to be switchy, when it comes to D/s role identification and enjoyment.

(in reply to SweetnStormySub)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be... - 2/5/2015 8:49:45 AM   
Bhruic


Posts: 985
Joined: 4/11/2012
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SweetnStormySub
But in crumpet's airplane scenario, I identified strongly with the strong J. I honestly don't know how that fits into the equation.


Don't worry yourself about it. You don't know how it fits in, because it doesn't. Attempts to categorize humanity in to a handful of psychological types with predictable behavior always spectacularly fail.

If you doubt it, just imagine what society would do with that information if that kind of psychological profiling was accurate and reliable... then look around and notice that society isn't doing any of that.

Your weatherman is better at predicting the weather 6 weeks from now, than tests like Briggs Myers is at predicting human behavior.

_____________________________

pronounced "VROOick"

(in reply to crumpets)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be... - 2/5/2015 8:58:47 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
m gathering that the single-letter "labels" confuse people, so, I modified the graphic to remove that confusion.

No.... neither the graphic nor the single letters are confusing anyone; except maybe you.

It's sheer bunkum and been discredited eons ago.
If you want to cling to a flawed theory, be my guest.
But don't try to foist it upon the world as if it actually had some meaning for everyone.
Much like "one twue wayism": Epic fail.


_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to crumpets)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be... - 2/5/2015 9:17:40 AM   
SweetnStormySub


Posts: 74
Joined: 4/21/2012
From: Buckeye State
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bhruic


quote:

ORIGINAL: SweetnStormySub
But in crumpet's airplane scenario, I identified strongly with the strong J. I honestly don't know how that fits into the equation.


Don't worry yourself about it. You don't know how it fits in, because it doesn't. Attempts to categorize humanity in to a handful of psychological types with predictable behavior always spectacularly fail.

If you doubt it, just imagine what society would do with that information if that kind of psychological profiling was accurate and reliable... then look around and notice that society isn't doing any of that.

Your weatherman is better at predicting the weather 6 weeks from now, than tests like Briggs Myers is at predicting human behavior.


Thank you :)
I can draft complex legislation, and analyze complex contracts but this *shakes my head* This left me groping for some point of reference, to no avail.
Wouldn't it just be so much more compassionate and logical just to let people "be" without trying to fit them in some arbitrary pigeon hole?
What concerns me is that many HR managers use this and similar methodologies to ascertain if certain candidates are a good fit with their corporate culture.
Phooey...

(in reply to Bhruic)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Are Myers-Briggs strongly P types more likely to be switches? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109